3. Scientific Attitude in Ancient India

X-6 Scientific Attitude in Ancient India: The Irrational Trends Chattopadhyaya has articulated in great detail (1976,1977,1982,1986) what he considers to be 'living (scientific) and what is dead (unscientific) in Indian philosphy'. According to him the Indian materialistic philosophy of the Lokayata was systematically denigrated in India by the anti-scientific and Brahminic philosphy of the Vedanta. Prafulla Chandra Ray had earlier (1902, 1909) developed the same theme, and criticised the Brahminic tradition for introducing the pernicious caste system and the anti-reason theological stranglehold in our sub-continent. Much of their criticisms are valid. The early casteless Rgvedic society gradually introduced a rigid caste system and sanctified it by the so-called 'divine sanction'. The isolation of the low-caste artisans from the high-caste scholars affected Indian science since the early days. We have mentione in Chapter III an ancient tradition that the ritual milking pot. was not to be prepared by a low-caste potter! Even metals like gold, copper and newly discovered iron were considered to possess decreasing social status. The concept of hereditary caste permeated into the subject of classification of minerals. According to Rasa-Ratna-Samuccaya (Rasaratna-samuccaya), diamond could have four colours or 'castes'! What was worse, such a classification theory for materials, based on caste, was claimed to have universal applicability: padarthesu arikhalesu api (Rasaratna-samuccaya 4.29-4.31)

x-7 We find the excellent compilation Amarakosa categorising the materials in four caste-categories, the metallurgical equipments falling under sudravarga. Even the scientifically oriented intellectuals like Caraka, Gotama, Prasastapada, though not conforming to all the Vedic tenets, tacitly accepted the varnasrama and the caste-system. The famous Vedantist Samkara not only supported the caste-injunctions of Manu, but also criticised the atomic theory of Kanada (Brahma-Sutrabhasyam, 2.2.17) : tasman evam asaratara tarkasamdabdhatvan isvarakarana srutiviruddhatvata paramanukaranavade paramanu karanavade sreyo'cibhiriti vakyasesah | L Such frontal attacks inhibited free-thinking of scientifically minded but god-fearing intellectuals and diffusion of knowledge across caste barriers. That the sudras should not be allowed to read the Vedas was almost fully accepted in ancient India. There was a cult of secrecy, of course nurtured by vested interests. The alchemical and iatrochemical research was marked by professional secrecy, and the astounding claims were made: A rasavidha drdham gopya maturguhyamiva dhruvam | bhareta viryavati gupta nirviryaca prakasanat || roginom bahubhijnanam bhavet nirviryam ausadham | na rogividitam karya bahubhirviditam tatha || that 'scientific knowledge remains powerful when kept secret and becomes useless when made public', and that 'the medicine becomes ineffective when its identity is revealed to the patient' (Rasaratna-samuccaya 6.71-72).

X-8 The insular attitude in India resulted in over- -compartmentalisation of technology. Only specific tribes like mundas practised iron-making (hence the name mundaloha), bhils practised zinc-making, turis gold and diamond-washing, Kansaris bell-metal trading; there were low-caste gem-engravers and even the rasasastra experts dealing with plant and mineral-based medicines were known as vaidyas or fallen brahmins (Roy, 1946). The different castes practising different aspects of trade rarely exchanged informations, only which could result in faster growth of science and technology in India. It has been well said that 'the evils that caste system engendered cannot be over-estimated'. During Varahamihira's time there was a healthy respect for foreign scholars (BS.2.4 and 2.32), but in the eleventh century A.D., Al-Beruni observed in India an insular attitude and the vice of vainglory amongst the contemporary Indian scholars (Sachau, 1910, 1983, Vol.1, pp.22-23) At the same time, Al-Beruni noted another reason for the decline of Indian Science 'Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country .... Hindu sciences have retired far away to other places'. Even earlier, the barbarous invasions of the Huns, Scythians and Saracens had stunned the growth of Indian sciences and arts. Ray (1902, 1909) and Chattopadhyaya (1986) have glossed over this aspect of Indian history. A More Sympathetic View Having noted the casteist and irrational trends in Indian science, we may also record the postive aspects in our tradition.

X-9 In the famous Nasadiva Sukta (Rigveda 10.129), the Rgveda provides the earliest example of India's spirit of enquiry. When the post-Vedic culture degenerated into rituals and regimentation in thoughts, a large number of non-conformist intellectuals such as Kapila, Kanada, Buddha appeared on the scene. They brought back the culture of reason and logic (Pande, 1969), and none of them, except the Lokayata scholars, denied the ethical precepts of the original Aryas. Panini stressed on proof (pramana), original discoveries of knowledge 'which had not existed' (upajna) and their applications (upakrama). Kautilya stressed on accurate measurements and standardisation in trade and commerce. Whereas the follow ers of Manu considered philosophy to be a subject subserving the Vedic lores (Arthasastra of Kautilya, 1.2.2-3), Kautilya asserted that anviksiki or investigative philosophy was supposed to investigate, by means of reasoning, not only the hazards of economics and politics, but also spiritual good and evil in the Vedic lore' (AS 1.2.11). boldly proclaimed that: 2 prayyam 'What is It was pradipah sarvavidyanam upayah sarvakarmanam | asrayah sarvadharmanam sasvat anviksiki mata || 'philosophy is ever thought of as the lamp of all sciences, as the means of all actions (and) as the support of all laws (and duties)' (AS.1. 2.12). 1 Chattopadhyaya himself has described (1976:5-7 and 1982: Volume 1, pp. 209-238) how the spirit of debate, enquiry and logic were sustained, during the early Christian era, by

X-10 Caraka, Gautama and Vatsayana, who subscribed to the ethical principles of the Vedanta concurrently. Caraka pointed out the merit of scientific debate which 'strengthens conviction by way of removing doubt in the pre-existing stock of knowledge, and breaks the tendency to insularism even of those that would not normally impart their own knowledge to others' (Caraka Samhita, 1.25.27., 3.8.15 and 28). In the second century A.D., Gotama or Gautama wrote his famous Nyayasutra (which was the origin of the science of logic in ancient India) and three centuries later, Vatsayana wrote the equally famous commentary on it. They emphasized the importances of intellectual doubt. (samasya), critical examination of the problem (pariksa) and final ascertainment (nirnaya) as distinct stages in the scientific and philosophical pursuits. Aryabhata (born 476 A.D.) did not subscribe to the traditional notion of five elements. His denial of the fifth element, akasa or ether, was in accordance with the materialistic philosophy of the Lokayata (Bongard Levin, 1977). Bhaskara I (629 A.D.) and later Al-Beruni emphasized on Aryabhata's agnostic approach about the space which is not reached by the solar rays, and the notion that which is not reached by perception is not knowable'. Aryabhata's theory of the Earth's rotation around its axis and his scientific explanation for the solar and lunar eclipses invited hostility from those who believed in the earlier cosmogenic doctrines, but there is no evidence that he faced any theological inquisition like Galileo.

X-11 Al-Beruni rightly accused Brahmagupta (born 598 A.D.) for indulging in half-truths, for criticising Varahamihira and Aryabhata (who had demolished the Rahu theory) and yet 'Calculating the diameter of the moon in order to explain her eclipsing the sun' (Sachau, 1910, 1983, Volume 2, pp. 110-112). Chattopadhyaya (1976:256-270) has discussed why the intellectuals of the ancient India, not only Brahmagupta, but also Kanada, Caraka, Gautama, Vatsayana, Varahamihira etc. chose not to go against the Brahminic or the Vedic concepts. and ideals. According to Chattopadhyaya, theirs was an act of 'subterfuge, a technique of evading inquisition'. He further observed that even in the modern world there are scientists who believe in matter as well as the divine (Newton and Einstein believed in God) and that they have split personalities'. A more sympathetic view may be proposed. The issue whether matter has evolved from consciousness (the spiritual view) or consciousness has evolved from matter (the materialistic view) has not yet been finally settled. This could be the famous 'chicken and egg' problem. Most intellectuals of all ages and countries might have preferred not to put all their eggs in one basket (atheistic material science). It is better to remain more open-minded on this issue (Biswas, 1969:19-31 and 99-118).

x-12 At any rate, the spectacular scientific achievements in the ancient India clearly show that not everything was dead in the intellectual plane. Whereas Samara ridiculed Kanadas atomic theory, Subhagupta commented that if atoms are to be doubted on the ground that these are not demonstratable like macroscopic objects, then one should doubt the human mind also! Ancient India always believed in accurate observation: and experiments. Atharvaveda initiated the ancient medical tradition by recommending that the animals in the forest may be closely observed to discover the pharmaceutical properties of the herbs (Atharvaveda 8.7.23-26). Caraka has laid emphasis on the importance and utility of scientific experiments (Caraka Samhita, 6.8.132,10.5): pariksayastu khalu prayojanam pratipattijnanam | samyak pariksa hi buddhimatama karyapravrttinivrtti kalau samsati | pariksakarinom hi kurala bhavanti || The entire Ayurvedic science of medicine has been based on experimentation; for example, poisoned food and drinks and antidotes were tried on lower animals followed by trial of drugs on human beings. Abundant material on this topic is available in the Samhitas of Caraka and Susruta and in the Astangasangraha. For centuries, this approach was pursued by the Rasasastra scholars The author of the 13 th century text Rasakalpa wrote: saksat anubhavairdrsto na juto gurudarsita, lokanam upakaraya etat sarvam nivedinam |

X-13 'I have performed the aforesaid experiments with my own hands and have seen them with my own eyes. They are not recorded from mere hearsay or from the dictation of a teacher. of mankind'. These are being promulgated for the benefit (quoted by Ray, 1956 157 and 370). Yasodhara made a similar statement in Rasa-Prakasa-Sudhakara. wrote: The author of the 14 th century text Rasendracintamani "That which I have heard of learned men and have read in the sastras but have not been able to verify by experiment, I have discarded. I am committing to writing only those which I have been able to perform with my own hands' (Ray's translation quoted by Chattopadhyaya, 1982, Volume 1, p.345) Rasa-Ratna-Samuccaya (Rasaratna-samuccaya) of the 14 th century A.D. defined who could undertake rasasastra experiments: samyak sadhana sodhama nanakarmaparammukha 'an ideal dedicated student, a hard working, meticulous research worker in Rasasastra' (Rasaratna-samuccaya 6.5-6.7; 6.67-6.68) and described: avyantapavane ramye tamtra sala .... samyak vatayanopeta divyacitraih vicitrita the ideal rasa-sala or alchemical laboratory, well-ventilated, well-decorated and set in a pleasing environment' (Rasaratna-samuccaya 6.11-6.58). The lay-out and the diversity of equipments were described in detail (Biswas, 1987:43-44)